Aesthetix Rhea vs. Io Signature

Having read most of the posts re: the Aesthetix Io (both with and w/o signature and dual power supply upgrades), I think I understand its excellence, yet have not auditioned it. However, I'd like to keep things fairly simple from a heat/maintenance/no.of boxes/cost standpoint. Thus, my interest in the Rhea. Would those of you who have experience with the Rhea vs. the Io comment as to the distinctions. The concern I have is how much body, weight and richness of soundstage is sacrificed vs. the Io (let's assume with single power supply, signature version).
The latest issue of Stereophile has a review of the Rhea in which the author takes quite a bit of time comparing it to the Io. I think it was written by Paul Bolin, check it out.
I have seen the Rhea but not seriously auditioned it. I have heard it, and it does sound good, but can't comment on the specific A-B.

One thing I will say, though, is that the IO produces a stunning amount of heat. I had always heard that tube gear produces a lot of heat - I've got a Counterpoint SA-11, so I have a pretty good idea! - but just sitting next to the rack holding a 3-box IO and the preamp (Castillo, I think) was an eye-opening experience.
Talk to Albertporter about this. He has heard them all, and currently has the IO DPS Signature with all NOS tubes, and knows what you want to know.
Albertporter....we would love to hear your comments about the Rhea if you have heard it?
Albert has commented on the new Aesthetix Saturn series of preamps, but without a specific comparison to the Io, in an earlier thread:
I own both an IO (NOT a signature version) and a phono stage custom-built for me by Kevin Carter at K&K Audio. In my system, the K&K holds its own with the IO and bests a number of other phonostages to which I did comparisons (at 1/2 to 1/3 the cost in some cases). I am in the process of writing an overdue review of this phonostage which I plan to post within the next couple of days.